Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar vs The State of Maharashtra — 39/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHLA090004622026
e-Filing Number
12-02-2026
Filing Number
237/2026
Filing Date
12-02-2026
Registration No
39/2026
Registration Date
12-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Udgir
Judge
2-2nd Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar
Adv. PATIL VISHAL DEELIPRAO
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir
Disposed
Reply/Say
Arguments
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 24-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar v. The State of Maharashtra (CRI. M. A. No. 39/2026) The court rejected Biradar's application under Section 503 of B.N.S.S. seeking release of Rs. 90,000 seized during investigation of a theft case. The applicant claimed Rs. 50,000 was stolen property and Rs. 40,000 was proceeds from selling his gold ornaments, but the court found his claim insufficient due to lack of purchase receipts for the ornaments, failure to file affidavits, inconsistencies between provided receipt details and F.I.R. claims, receipt not in applicant's name, and failure to add the person from whose possession the amount was recovered as a party to the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar v. The State of Maharashtra (CRI. M. A. No. 39/2026) The court rejected Biradar's application under Section 503 of B.N.S.S. seeking release of Rs. 90,000 seized during investigation of a theft case. The applicant claimed Rs. 50,000 was stolen property and Rs. 40,000 was proceeds from selling his gold ornaments, but the court found his claim insufficient due to lack of purchase receipts for the ornaments, failure to file affidavits, inconsistencies between provided receipt details and F.I.R. claims, receipt not in applicant's name, and failure to add the person from whose possession the amount was recovered as a party to the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts